i find it fascinating however, that at least half the posts in this thread originated from people who cannot have viewed the entire film in question.
Along the same lines, basso, I have discovered that based on my extensive reading and analysis of every book available from the Guttenberg Project (they have 20,000 individual titles available for you to read) that every comment you have ever made at clutchfans.net is wrong and a waste of our time. Until you have read each and every one of these books you can not disprove my thesis. So until you have finished reading, I am by default correct. Because of this, you can no longer post on this BBS and you can no longer claim that you believe or know anything. Once you have finished all 20,000 titles, you will be able to make a legitimate judgment on my thesis. If you disagree at that point you can resume posting. Thanks.
I used to agree with you. I think that I have been greatly influenced by what I have debated here, particularly posts by MadMax, Sishir Chang, and the triple Ds of yourself and DaDakota (oh and rimrocker). But lately I'm burned out. The most irritating posters tend to be the most prolific, and the most stupidly stubborn. It's just a waste of time to hash global warming with basso or hayes or any of the myriad of posters who have brought the topic up 40,000 times with no intention of actually debating anything or owning up to the reality of data. Same with iraq, bush's policies, or most any other topic. I am by no means a saint. But I have tried to see the other side when the rhetoric is unclear as to the "right" side. Maybe I'm deluding myself in thinking that, but I don't profess to be a demopublican - of either variety. I'm cynical and pessimistic of anyone in a position of authority - and usually justifiably so. I enjoy debates on philosophy here (the moral relativism thread for example - well up until hotballa went all looney-bin on me) and I used to enjoy debates of scientific inquiry (creationism vs evolution and global warming for example) - but even those are just becoming boring rehashes of the same fight with the same people. Frankly, as a whole the debates on here have depressed me. Call it polarization or whatever, but if this forum is a microcosm of our national scene, no wonder Washington is running this country into the ground. Division can lead to discourse. But more often it leads to apathy, extortion, and bitter, bitter loss of identity. Meh. Sorry for the long-winded b**** fest.
So, the increase in temperature of the atmosphere is causing the CO2 increase, rather than the C02 increase causing the temperature increase. The source of the heat fluctuations is that giant heat ball in the sky. I never bought into the man-caused warming, and I find that video very feasible. The earth has had ice ages before, and warming periods, long before human modernization.
You've posted so much garbage, plagiarism, and outright lies over the years your threads no longer consider serious consideration.
That would be foolish of you. Anyway you're right most of this is a waste of time and its doubtful opinions will be changed here. I think Hayes and Basso are just arguing for the sake of riling people up since they are on record as considering global warming a problem. With all of that though there is some good information and you can learn something here. For instance in the last global warming thread I found the stuff Hayes posted from Dr. Lindzen, a global warming doubter, very interesting and challenged me to learn more about the subject. Did it change my mind? Not at all but it was interesting and a good prompt for self improvement. D & D. The more you know the farther you will go.
Well I'd rather take that approach (of not knowing enough) than the one the video gave by using the sun's influence (another simple cause) as an alternate reason. That lack of information should spur us to dig deeper. We want simple causes for complex problems because we assume the answers will also be simple. The link I gave last time with an independent institute's event with the speakers Michael Crichton, Bruce Ames, Sallie L. Baliunas, William M. Gray, and George H. Taylor all give accounts to caution against the politicization of science. As I wrote before, there are political costs for putting all of our environmental political capital upon the global warming movement. I do not expect the public to pay more attention to the earth should this problem be abated or be proven false. I don't know the exact word for it, but I'd liken it to fear fatigue. That program is loopy in its presentation. It seemed like that mosquito scientist's interview was heavily edited. I don't think he'd deny that mosquito prone areas with a change in increased rainfall would have a growth in mosquitoes. There's probably other caveats in his doubts that wound up on the cutting room floor. I didn't like the Africa bit either. The American argument against Kyoto was that 3rd world countries along with developing countries were exempt from CO2 regulation, and thus couldn't share the "economic burden". I think the British program is using similar logic upon environmentalists by lumping in Africa with China and India. The liberal use of the word environmentalist makes it comes off very slanted. No pragmatic environmentalist is going to enforce draconian measures upon developing economies if the control technologies are too costly. When the Montreal Protocol banned CFCs and ozone depleting aeresols, third world nations were exempt because alternatives weren't cheap enough and industrialized nations would create a market for alternatives so the economies of scale would kick. The people of poor nations still use firewood as their main fuel source. Another gap in the program's logic assumes that all African countries are coal or oil rich. Importing African countries share the same price fluctuations as industrialized nations. The program can not assume that using coal or oil is the cheapest energy source. It's cheap for us because we already have costly infrastructure set in. That costly infrastructure is one reason why alternate energy hasn't gained enough inertia. For all we know, investing in cheap wind power could be more economical for an African country's power needs. And I hope poor countries don't have to invest in brown infrastructure in the future. The inventor of the Segway has been working on a cheap and local clean water and portable energy generator for unconnected tribes and localities. While these stories are promising, we can't rely upon entrepreneur inventors and engineers to solve our worldwide energy problems. Yet we're using Global Warming as a starting topic for these and other environmental debates. Environmental issues are all interconnected, but we're treating it as one problem with one answer.
Dude it's not a film and it's not science, it's propaganda plain and simple. I take Dr. Wunsch's word for it - considering that he's cited as a principal authority in it. It's like saying "if you haven't read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their entirety, I don't know how you can dismiss the worldwide Jewish Conspiracy"
Sam, the complete ownage you posted earlier in this thread was naturally ignored wholeheartedly by basso, further proving what a complete waste of time this thread is.
Can I post this here without getting strung up? Because this is what bothers me MOST about this. Not that people suggest we have a role in global warming...because I think it's pretty clear we do. But, rather, that it's the end of the world as we know it. From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/s...7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss By WILLIAM J. BROAD Published: March 13, 2007 Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change. But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism. “I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.” Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.” Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims. Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots. Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.” Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence. “He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.” “An Inconvenient Truth,” directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list. Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.” He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees. “He has credibility in this community,” said Tim Killeen, the group’s president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. “There’s no question he’s read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.” Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, “Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.” Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States. “We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is,” Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Gore. “On the other hand,” Dr. Hansen said, “he has the bottom line right: most storms, at least those driven by the latent heat of vaporization, will tend to be stronger, or have the potential to be stronger, in a warmer climate.” In his e-mail message, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate. “Of course,” he said, “there will always be questions around the edges of the science, and we have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions.” He said “not every single adviser” agreed with him on every point, “but we do agree on the fundamentals” — that warming is real and caused by humans. Mr. Gore added that he perceived no general backlash among scientists against his work. “I have received a great deal of positive feedback,” he said. “I have also received comments about items that should be changed, and I have updated the book and slideshow to reflect these comments.” He gave no specifics on which points he had revised. He said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of global warming, “I think that I’m finally getting a little better at it.” While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.” Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process. It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent. Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.” So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.” Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement. “Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming. Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms. “Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.” In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change. Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.” Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.” Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria. “For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.” Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity. “On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”
Again, I think you appear to be more concerned about form over substance than this issue. Regardless of tone or alarmism, the operative fact is this: ....but if you listen to the GW Deniers (and shockingly their staggeringly rich benefactors that are behind them with trillions to lose), they refuse to accept this and spend lots of time and money like that film that basso posted trying to turn the clock back and r****d, obscure, and obstruct public understanding of the issue. I mean you yourself have often posted GW-propaganda (which can be refuted, not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact) that disputes pretty basic truths. That does nothing but obscure. I think that's a lot more damaging than somebody's tone.
Here's what you need to know about me. I'm still learning on this issue. I'm not a scientist. I have no idea who the GW-propaganda scientists are. So I'm not posting stuff here with an idea of converting people to that way of thinking...I post it here to generate conversation...and frankly, I learn from that conversation. I think the naysayers and the alarmists are both doing harm, frankly. It SEEMS to me that there is agreement that we are contributing to global warming. How much and what the effects will be seem to be up in the air (get it??? up in the air?? get it??). I just think it' loses a lot of credibility when, for example, Gore gets up and talks about oceans rising 20 feet...and the UN's most recent report talks about them rising 20 inches. They lose me big time with stuff like that. And they lose others who remember hearing that we were destined to be wiped out by the imminent and inevitable ice age in the 1970's. You can only cry wolf so many times. That doesn't mean warming isn't happening...it doesn't mean I believe it won't have consequences, many of which are unpleasant....it doesn't mean I think we should do NOTHING about it. I believe cleaning up the environment is something we SHOULD be doing, without the threat of the sky falling. I believe reducing dependence on oil has effects, environmentally and politically, that are fantastic. But in the end, what I think really is of very little consequence. I'm not a scientist. I don't spend time studying this past reading articles and watching the Discovery Channel.
I've heard a lot of these statements before max, from the very same people. At the time they were from an article in the canadian free press, a newspaper just a shade more independent than a White House press release. I'll spare you some thoughts on the matter of scientific integrity because it's all a moot point. There is significant dissension over the ultimate effect of global warming. Maybe it's worldwide chatastrophe, maybe it's some trivial change in tidal wave heights in bangladesh. But I'll stand up on my soapbox here and proclaim two points that are always "left out" by those critical of versions portrayed in documentaries such as Mr. Gore's: 1) Indications of the worst possible case are not put forward for fun. The worst case provides a glimpse of potential calamities that can be avoided, and provides a justification for public concern. You might call this fear-mongering, but I would call it prudence. Maybe it's the engineer in me, but preparing for the worst case (or a significant portion of worst cases) is simply a rational way to address unknowns. 2) All this is silly anyhow. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is beneficial in so many other ways that reduding global warming concerns is just icing on the cake. Acid rain, smog, asthma, cancer, suspended particle and heavy metal pollution, and on and on.... People hung up on global warming over-predictions always leave these out. That's not to say that I am not concerned that Gore's portrayal is accurate. Not the "we're all going to drown" stuff, but concerns like drought and heat waves leading to very real agricultural threats. Water supplies dwindling as aquifers (already way overtaxed) dry up, changes as little as 1 degree in water temperatures can kill off coral reefs and disrupt oxygen transfer in ocean currents (witness the gulf "dead zones"). Very few people, I think, understand how interconnected these things are, and how delicate. I could go on, but you've heard it from me before. I study this stuff (partly as a "hobby", partly for classwork since the m.s. program I am enrolled in is environmental science/management) - I am by no means an expert, but there is an astouding amount of data, and even more astounding level of complexity to this type of research. And that is not cause for disillusion, but rather a grounds for being conservative with respect to proactive policy to reduce the probability of the "worst case".
This post reminded me of something I read in the Atlantic Monthly some months ago. I found it online: Some Convenient Truths Runaway global warming looks all but unstoppable. Maybe that’s because we haven’t really tried to stop it by Gregg Easterbrook ..... I f there is now a scientific consensus that global warming must be taken seriously, there is also a related political consensus: that the issue is Gloom City. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore warns of sea levels rising to engulf New York and San Francisco and implies that only wrenching lifestyle sacrifice can save us. The opposing view is just as glum. Even mild restrictions on greenhouse gases could “cripple our economy,” Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri said in 2003. Other conservatives suggest that greenhouse-gas rules for Americans would be pointless anyway, owing to increased fossil-fuel use in China and India. When commentators hash this issue out, it’s often a contest to see which side can sound more pessimistic. Here’s a different way of thinking about the greenhouse effect: that action to prevent runaway global warming may prove cheap, practical, effective, and totally consistent with economic growth. Which makes a body wonder: Why is such environmental optimism absent from American political debate? Greenhouse gases are an air-pollution problem—and all previous air-pollution problems have been reduced faster and more cheaply than predicted, without economic harm. Some of these problems once seemed scary and intractable, just as greenhouse gases seem today. About forty years ago urban smog was increasing so fast that President Lyndon Johnson warned, “Either we stop poisoning our air or we become a nation [in] gas masks groping our way through dying cities.” During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, emissions of chlorofluoro*carbons, or CFCs, threatened to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer. As recently as George H. W. Bush’s administration, acid rain was said to threaten a “new silent spring” of dead Appalachian forests. But in each case, strong regulations were enacted, and what happened? Since 1970, smog-forming air pollution has declined by a third to a half. Emissions of CFCs have been nearly eliminated, and studies suggest that ozone-layer replenishment is beginning. Acid rain, meanwhile, has declined by a third since 1990, while Appalachian forest health has improved sharply. Most progress against air pollution has been cheaper than expected. Smog controls on automobiles, for example, were predicted to cost thousands of dollars for each vehicle. Today’s new cars emit less than 2 percent as much smog-forming pollution as the cars of 1970, and the cars are still as affordable today as they were then. Acid-rain control has cost about 10 percent of what was predicted in 1990, when Congress enacted new rules. At that time, opponents said the regulations would cause a “clean-air recession”; instead, the economy boomed. Greenhouse gases, being global, are the biggest air-pollution problem ever faced. And because widespread fossil-fuel use is inevitable for some time to come, the best-case scenario for the next few decades may be a slowing of the rate of greenhouse-gas buildup, to prevent runaway climate change. Still, the basic pattern observed in all other forms of air-pollution control—rapid progress at low cost—should repeat for greenhouse-gas controls. Yet a paralyzing negativism dominates global-warming politics. Environmentalists depict climate change as nearly unstoppable; skeptics speak of the problem as either imaginary (the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated,” in the words of Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate’s environment committee) or ruinously expensive to address. Even conscientious politicians may struggle for views that aren’t dismal. Mandy Grunwald, a Democratic political consultant, says, “When political candidates talk about new energy sources, they use a positive, can-do vocabulary. Voters have personal experience with energy use, so they can relate to discussion of solutions. If you say a car can use a new kind of fuel, this makes intuitive sense to people. But global warming is of such scale and magnitude, people don’t have any commonsense way to grasp what the solutions would be. So political candidates tend to talk about the greenhouse effect in a depressing way.” One reason the global-warming problem seems so daunting is that the success of previous antipollution efforts remains something of a secret. Polls show that Americans think the air is getting dirtier, not cleaner, perhaps because media coverage of the environment rarely if ever mentions improvements. For instance, did you know that smog and acid rain have continued to diminish throughout George W. Bush’s presidency? One might expect Democrats to trumpet the decline of air pollution, which stands as one of government’s leading postwar achievements. But just as Republicans have found they can bash Democrats by falsely accusing them of being soft on defense, Democrats have found they can bash Republicans by falsely accusing them of destroying the environment. If that’s your argument, you might skip over the evidence that many environmental trends are positive. One might also expect Republicans to trumpet the reduction of air pollution, since it signifies responsible behavior by industry. But to acknowledge that air pollution has declined would require Republicans to say the words, “The regulations worked.” Does it matter that so many in politics seem so pessimistic about the prospect of addressing global warming? Absolutely. Making the problem appear unsolvable encourages a sort of listless fatalism, blunting the drive to take first steps toward a solution. Historically, first steps against air pollution have often led to pleasant surprises. When Congress, in 1970, mandated major reductions in smog caused by automobiles, even many supporters of the rule feared it would be hugely expensive. But the catalytic converter was not practical then; soon it was perfected, and suddenly, major reductions in smog became affordable. Even a small step by the United States against greenhouse gases could lead to a similar breakthrough. And to those who worry that any greenhouse-gas reductions in the United States will be swamped by new emissions from China and India, here’s a final reason to be optimistic: technology can move across borders with considerable speed. Today it’s not clear that American inventors or entrepreneurs can make money by reducing greenhouse gases, so relatively few are trying. But suppose the United States regulated greenhouse gases, using its own domestic program, not the cumbersome Kyoto Protocol; then America’s formidable entrepreneurial and engineering communities would fully engage the problem. Innovations pioneered here could spread throughout the world, and suddenly rapid global warming would not seem inevitable. The two big technical advances against smog—the catalytic converter and the chemical engineering that removes pollutants from gasoline at the refinery stage—were invented in the United States. The big economic advance against acid rain—a credit-trading system that gives power-plant managers a profit incentive to reduce pollution—was pioneered here as well. These advances are now spreading globally. Smog and acid rain are still increasing in some parts of the world, but the trend lines suggest that both will decline fairly soon, even in developing nations. For instance, two decades ago urban smog was rising at a dangerous rate in Mexico; today it is diminishing there, though the country’s population continues to grow. A short time ago declining smog and acid rain in developing nations seemed an impossibility; today declining greenhouse gases seem an impossibility. The history of air-pollution control says otherwise. Americans love challenges, and preventing artificial climate change is just the sort of technological and economic challenge at which this nation excels. It only remains for the right politician to recast the challenge in practical, optimistic tones. Gore seldom has, and Bush seems to have no interest in trying. But cheap and fast improvement is not a pipe dream; it is the pattern of previous efforts against air pollution. The only reason runaway global warming seems unstoppable is that we have not yet tried to stop it. link
I'd like to take a brief respite from serious discussion in order to post this sexy picture to lure basso back to his thread: Thank you, carry on.
